Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: LCA 4341/2024
Kripan VS. MCD
14.08.2026
Present: Sh. Vishal, Ld. AR for applicant/workman.
Sh. Deepesh Verma, Ld. AR for the MCD/management.
Calculation chart filed by the MCD. Copy supplied. Same
has been accepted by AR for the workman.
The present petition/application has been filed by
applicant/workman Kripan s/o Muniyam (Munian), claiming that he
was employee of the management and management has not cleared
certain dues as mentioned in the petition/application.
The MCD/Management has filed service record and
calculation chart admitting the workman to be its employee and also
admitting the details of outstanding dues as under :
(a) Pay difference arrear bill,
non metric = Rs. 1,24,620/-
Thus, total amount is Rs.1,24,620/-
Statement of AR for the applicant has been recorded,
separately, whereby he has admitted the correctness of calculation
filed by the management and requested that matter may be disposed
off on the basis of calculation given by the management.
Scope and ambit of Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act has been
discussed in para 13 of judgment titled
“Jeet Lal Sharma Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court-IV & Anr.” 2000 IV AD (Del) wherein Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi after referring to a series of judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court titled (i)
“Punjab National Bank Vs. K. L. Kharbanda”
reported in 1962 (1) LLJ 234; (ii) “Central Bank of India Vs. P.S.
Rajagopalan” reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 89; (iii) “Bombay Gas
Company Limited Vs. Gopal Bhiva” reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 608;
(iv) “Chief Engineer Mining, East India Coal Company Limited Vs.
LCA 4341/2024
	Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
Rameshwar” reported in 1968 (1) Lab I.C.6 SC and (v) “Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak” reported in 1995 (1) SCC
335 has observed:
“13. When the claim is based on adjudication or
settlement it poses no difficulty. However there may be
cases where the workman would be held entitled to
receive the money as pre-existing right on the basis of the
agreement between the employer and employee or as per
established service conditions which have culminated into
right in favour of the workman……
It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court that
application under section 33-C(2) would be maintainable
and jurisdiction of Labour Court will not be barred merely
because employer has denied the same in case the right to
get a particular benefit is included in the service
conditions. Para 15 and 16 of judgment of Hon’ble High
Court in Jeet Lal Sharma’s case (supra) w.r.t jurisdiction
of Labour Court are reproduced below for reference:
“15. The point which is emphasized is that
entitlement to receive money i.e. pre-existing right can be
based on (1) adjudication (2) settlement (3) service
conditions. If the right to get a particular benefit is there,
the application u/s. 33-C(2) would be maintainable and
jurisdiction of Labour Court will not be barred merely
because employer has denied the same.”
“16. What is the meaning of the expression
“entitlement to receive”. No doubt it is referable to pre-
existing right. However where the workman claims a
benefit flowing from a pre-existing and approaches the
Labour Court u/s. 33-C(2) for computation of the right in
term of money and the employer disputes the existence of
the right, the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to
determine the question whether the right exists and if the
existence of right is established than to proceed to
compute the benefit flowing there from in terms of money
or on its decisions recovery proceedings can start (New
Taj Mahal Cafe Private Limited versus Labour Court
reported in 1970 (2) LLN 51 and East India Coal
Company Limited (supra). In deciding the maintainability
of the application u/s. 33-C(2) what is to be looked at is
the claim set up in the applications and not what the other
side contends in its reply. The fact that the employer by
his plea raises some dispute does not mean that
jurisdiction of Labour Court to deal with the question is
taken away.”
Accordingly, present petition/application is allowed and
management is directed to pay Rs. 1,24,620/- to the
LCA 4341/2024
	Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
applicant/workman Kripan s/o Muniyam (Munian). Needless to
mention, if at any point of time, it is found that amount has already
been paid or overpaid, the MCD would be at liberty to deduct said
amount. Further, if at any point of time, it is found that due to some
discrepancy, error due to incorrect fixation of pay or any emoluments,
excess payment has been made, the applicant would be liable to refund
the said amount to the MCD. The applicant would give an undertaking
in this regard to the MCD. File be consigned to record room.
As prayed, copy of order be given dasti.
(Sumit Dass)
POLC-06: RADC/New Delhi
14.08.2026
LCA 4341/2024
	Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --